Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 819 (MP)

Kanchan Medical Stores v. Union of India

2016-09-16

C.V.SIRPURKAR, R.S.JHA

body2016
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard and decided finally. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the tender proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities for the purposes of supply of medicines to Central Government Health Centres for the year 2015-16. 4. The facts, as stated by the petitioner in the petition, are that the respondent authorities floated tender for the aforesaid purpose and the last date for filing tender form was 28.9.2015. It is submitted that one of the conditions, i.e. condition no.2.3.3 of the Tender Notice, requires the tenderer to submit an Audited Balance Sheet of the previous two financial years and a certificate of turn over indicating that the tenderer had supplied medicines to other than C.G.H.S sources of an amount of more than 30 lakhs in each of the two years. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had submitted his form, the same was not opened at the time of finalisation of the tender proceedings by stating that the petitioner had not filed the Audited Balance Sheet of the previous two financial years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last date for filing return for the financial year 2014-15 was 30.9.2015 and the petitioner obtained the Audit Balance Sheet on 29.9.2015, i.e. a day after the last date for submission of the tender documents. It is submitted that as the petitioner had filed his return and that procuring Audited Balance Sheet was beyond his control, therefore, the authorities should have taken into consideration the Audited Balance Sheet filed by the petitioner for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 instead of insisting for the Audited Balance Sheet of the year 2014-15. It is submitted that in such circumstances the Tender proceedings initiated by the respondents be quashed and they be directed to consider the petitioner's Tender form for the purposes of granting tender to the petitioner as he is otherwise qualified. It is submitted that in such circumstances the Tender proceedings initiated by the respondents be quashed and they be directed to consider the petitioner's Tender form for the purposes of granting tender to the petitioner as he is otherwise qualified. The respondents have vehemently opposed the submission of the petitioner and have stated that condition No.2.2.3 of the Tender Notice contained in the instruction for online bid submission, clearly stipulates and provides that the tenderer must submit the Audited Balance Sheet of the previous two financial years along with a certificate regarding turnover to establish that his turn-over of the previous two years is more than 60 lakhs and out of the said 60 lakhs the sale proceeds of medicines from sources other than CGHS was more than 30 lakhs. It is stated that as the petitioner admittedly did not fulfil the aforesaid conditions, his tender was not opened and, therefore, no fault can be found with the proceedings undertaken by the respondents. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The relevant terms of the instructions of tender document is in the following terms:- 2.2.3 ....The Annual Turnover of the bidder in the previous two financial years should not be less than Rs. Sixty lakh, out of which the sale proceeds of medicines from sources other than CGHS in last two financial years should not be less than Rs.30 lakh per year. The bidder has to submit an Audited Balance Sheet with Profit and Loss statement of the two financial years in support thereof, along with a Certificate from the Chartered Accountant regarding turnover from outside CGHS being more than 30 lakh in each of the two years." 7. From a perusal thereof, it is apparent that one of the necessary conditions for being an eligible tenderer was to produce the previous Audited Balance Sheet with profit and loss statement of the two previous financial years along with a certificate from the Chartered Accountant regarding turn-over from outside CGHS being more than 30 lakhs in each of the two years. 8. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner had filed the Audited Balance Sheet of the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, whereas the petitioner was required to file the Audited Balance Sheet of the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 9. 8. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner had filed the Audited Balance Sheet of the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, whereas the petitioner was required to file the Audited Balance Sheet of the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 9. In view of the aforesaid, as the petitioner did not comply with the necessary tender conditions, his bid was not opened and considered by the authorities and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that as the aforesaid aspect is undisputed and admitted, no fault can be found with the proceedings taken up by the respondent authorities. 10. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Before we part with the case, we consider it necessary to observe that the petition has been filed by Kanchan Medical Stores and there is nothing on record to indicate that the aforesaid Kanchan Medical Stores is a juristic person who can claim Fundamental Rights enshrined under Chapter-III of the Constitution of India, and although the petition has been filed through its proprietor, he has not been impleaded as a petitioner in the present petition. It needs no emphasis to state that such requirements are necessary and mandatory and are required to be complied with while filing a petition claiming breach of Fundamental Rights and seeking issuance of a writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and filing a petition without giving such details would normally lead to dismissal of the petition as not maintainable. 12. However, as in the instant case, notices were issued and returns have also been filed and as we do not find any merit in the petition, we have dismissed it, therefore, we have made the aforesaid observations while dismissing the petition. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.